Search

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p< .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr= .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r= .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r= .04) and the original RP:P replications (r= .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r= .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r= .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r= .37, range = .19–.50).

In Experiment 5 of Albarracín et al. (2008), participants primed with words associated with action performed better on a subsequent cognitive task than did participants primed with words associated with inaction. A direct replication attempt by Frank, Kim, and Lee (2016) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P) failed to find evidence for this effect. In this article, we discuss several potential explanations for these discrepant findings: the source of participants (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk vs. traditional undergraduate-student pool), the setting of participation (online vs. in lab), and the possible moderating role of affect. We tested Albarracín et al.’s original hypothesis in two new samples: For the first sample, we followed the protocol developed by Frank et al. and recruited participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n= 580). For the second sample, we used a revised protocol incorporating feedback from the original authors and recruited participants from eight universities (n= 884). We did not detect moderation by protocol; patterns in the revised protocol resembled those in our implementation of the RP:P protocol, but the estimate of the focal effect size was smaller than that found originally by Albarracín et al. and larger than that found in Frank et al.’s replication attempt. We discuss these findings and possible explanations.

When deployed U.S. soldiers attempt to influence the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of civilians, success can save lives and failure can be deadly. Survey data from 228 military personnel with deployment experience to Iraq and Afghanistan revealed that in a challenging wartime environment, empathy, respect, prior relationships, and familiarity with influence targets predicted success in cross-cultural influence attempts. Influence techniques involving resources and positive feelings were used more commonly in relatively successful influence attempts; negative tactics were used more commonly in unsuccessful attempts.

A century of research on small groups has yielded bountiful findings about many specific features and processes in groups. Much of that work, in line with a positivist epistemology that emphasizes control and precision and favors the laboratory experiment over other data collection strategies, has also tended to treat groups as though they were simple, isolated, static entities. Recent research trends that treat groups as complex, adaptive, dynamic systems open up new approaches to studying groups. In line with those trends, a theory of groups as complex systems is offered and some methodological and conceptual issues raised by this theory are identified. A 3-pronged research strategy based on theory development, computational modeling, and empirical research that holds promise for illuminating the dynamic processes underlying the emergence of complexity and the ongoing balance of continuity and change in groups is proposed.

An experimental study of 60 work groups that met weekly either face to face or via a computer conferencing system for seven weeks is described. The experimental design, computer technology, experimental tasks, and composition of the groups are described in detail. A brief overview is given of the five empirical pieces in this special issue that report findings from this experimental study.

A three-part conception of group identity is proposed that draws on common fate, cohesiveness, and cognitive views of group identity. The changing contribution of these three components to group identity was examined for 31 original and 29 reconfigured groups which met for 7 consecutive weeks using either face-to-face (FIF) or computer-mediated communication (CMC). Group identity was consistently lower for computer-mediated groups, and this effect was stronger in the reconfigured groups. In the original groups, group identity started high and declined for both FTF and CMC groups. In the reconfigured groups, developmental patterns differed from those of the original groups, and also differed by communication medium. Individual differences accounted for a substantial amount of variance in group identity across original and reconfigured groups.

This study examines how group experience, communication medium, and strategies for combining individual ideas influence the integrative complexity of group products. Each week for six weeks, members of 31 work groups wrote individual essays about their group tasks and experiences, and then collaborated on a group essay on the same topic. Results indicate that in the later weeks of the study, computer-mediated groups produce essays with higher integrative complexity than those of face-to-face groups. The integrative complexity of essays in later weeks is a joint function of the complexity of member ideas and the number of members who participate directly in writing the essay (scribes). The greater complexity of computer-mediated groups' essays in the later weeks of the study is partly accounted for by their use of more scribes and their inclusion of more unique member ideas.

This paper summarizes main findings of the five empirical papers in this issue, and discusses certain themes that connect them.